ArticleBMJ open2018
Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020).PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Public Reporting Systems in Health Care and the Underconceptualized Technical Substrate, a Core Information Systems Dimension: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Australian private healthcare staff perspectives on patient reported experience measures (PREMs): a qualitative interview study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring the factors impacting choice and quality of overnight private hospital stays and consumer perspectives on patient reported experience measures (PREMs) in Australia: a qualitative interview study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Quantifying the Costs to Different Funders over Five-Years for Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in Queensland, Australia: A Data Linkage Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- A decade of commitment to hospital quality of care: overview of and perceptions on multicomponent quality improvement policies involving accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- The impact of public performance reporting on cancer elective surgery waiting times: a data linkage study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Technological, Organizational, and Environmental Factors Influencing Social Media Adoption by Hospitals in Switzerland: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- The impact of Australian healthcare reforms on emergency department time-based process outcomes: An interrupted time series study.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNational mandatory public performance reporting (PPR) for Australian public hospitals, including measures of cancer surgery waiting times, was introduced in 2011. PPR is voluntary for private hospitals. The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data is used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer when selecting a hospital for elective surgery and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs.
designA national cross-sectional postal questionnaire.
settingAustralian private healthcare sector.
participantsPrivate patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital for elective surgery (n=243) in 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' choice of hospital, use of PPR information and preferred areas of PPR information. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted.
resultsTwo hundred and twenty-eight respondents (94%) attended a private hospital. Almost half could choose a hospital. Choice of hospital was not influenced by PPR data (92% unaware) but by their specialist (90%). Respondents considered PPR to be important (71%) but they did not want to see the information, preferring their general practitioners (GPs) to tell them about it (40%). Respondents considered surgery costs (59%), complications (58%) and recovery success rates (57%) to be important areas of information that should be publicly reported. Almost half suggested that quality indicators should be reported at the individual clinician level. Analysis of the open-ended questions identified four themes: (1) decision-making factors; (2) data credibility; (3) unmet information needs and (4) unintended consequences.
conclusionsPPR of hospital data had no substantial impact on patients' choice of hospital. Nonetheless, many respondents expressed interest in using it in future. To increase PPR awareness and usability, personalised and integrated information on cost and quality of hospitals is required. Dissemination of PPR information via specialists and GPs could assist patients to interpret the data and support decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.